Cargando…

A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions

BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a risk assessment for those aged 40–74 without a pre-existing condition in England, with the aim of preventing stroke, kidney disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia. Uptake has been lower than anticipated. Ensuring that a high percentage of e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bunten, Amanda, Porter, Lucy, Gold, Natalie, Bogle, Vanessa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6975079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31964366
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7889-4
_version_ 1783490231766351872
author Bunten, Amanda
Porter, Lucy
Gold, Natalie
Bogle, Vanessa
author_facet Bunten, Amanda
Porter, Lucy
Gold, Natalie
Bogle, Vanessa
author_sort Bunten, Amanda
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a risk assessment for those aged 40–74 without a pre-existing condition in England, with the aim of preventing stroke, kidney disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia. Uptake has been lower than anticipated. Ensuring that a high percentage of eligible patients receive a NHSHC is key to optimising the clinical and cost effectiveness of the programme. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight interventions and invitation methods that increase the uptake of NHSHCs, and to identify whether the effectiveness of these interact with broader patient and contextual factors. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Papers were eligible if they explored the impact of at least one of (i) interventions, (ii) invitation methods or (iii) broader factors on NHSHC uptake. Ten databases were searched in January 2016 and seven were searched in March 2018. Nine-hundred-and-forty-five papers were identified, 238 were screened and 64 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Nine studies were included in the review. RESULTS: The nine studies were all from peer reviewed journals. They included two randomised controlled trials, one observational cohort and six cross-sectional studies. Different invitation methods may be more effective for different groups of patients based on their ethnicity and gender. One intervention to enhance invitation letters effectively increased uptake but another did not. In addition, individual patient characteristics (such as age, gender, ethnicity and risk level) were found to influence uptake. This review also finds that uptake varies significantly by GP practice, which could be due either to unidentified practice-level factors or deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of different invitation methods for different population groups. Research should examine how existing invitation methods can be enhanced to drive uptake whilst reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on 22.02.2016. Registration number CRD42016035626.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6975079
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69750792020-01-28 A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions Bunten, Amanda Porter, Lucy Gold, Natalie Bogle, Vanessa BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: The NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a risk assessment for those aged 40–74 without a pre-existing condition in England, with the aim of preventing stroke, kidney disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia. Uptake has been lower than anticipated. Ensuring that a high percentage of eligible patients receive a NHSHC is key to optimising the clinical and cost effectiveness of the programme. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight interventions and invitation methods that increase the uptake of NHSHCs, and to identify whether the effectiveness of these interact with broader patient and contextual factors. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Papers were eligible if they explored the impact of at least one of (i) interventions, (ii) invitation methods or (iii) broader factors on NHSHC uptake. Ten databases were searched in January 2016 and seven were searched in March 2018. Nine-hundred-and-forty-five papers were identified, 238 were screened and 64 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Nine studies were included in the review. RESULTS: The nine studies were all from peer reviewed journals. They included two randomised controlled trials, one observational cohort and six cross-sectional studies. Different invitation methods may be more effective for different groups of patients based on their ethnicity and gender. One intervention to enhance invitation letters effectively increased uptake but another did not. In addition, individual patient characteristics (such as age, gender, ethnicity and risk level) were found to influence uptake. This review also finds that uptake varies significantly by GP practice, which could be due either to unidentified practice-level factors or deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of different invitation methods for different population groups. Research should examine how existing invitation methods can be enhanced to drive uptake whilst reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on 22.02.2016. Registration number CRD42016035626. BioMed Central 2020-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6975079/ /pubmed/31964366 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7889-4 Text en © Crown copyright will apply to Amanda Bunten, Lucy Porter and Natalie Gold. 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bunten, Amanda
Porter, Lucy
Gold, Natalie
Bogle, Vanessa
A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions
title A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions
title_full A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions
title_fullStr A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions
title_short A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions
title_sort systematic review of factors influencing nhs health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6975079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31964366
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7889-4
work_keys_str_mv AT buntenamanda asystematicreviewoffactorsinfluencingnhshealthcheckuptakeinvitationmethodspatientcharacteristicsandtheimpactofinterventions
AT porterlucy asystematicreviewoffactorsinfluencingnhshealthcheckuptakeinvitationmethodspatientcharacteristicsandtheimpactofinterventions
AT goldnatalie asystematicreviewoffactorsinfluencingnhshealthcheckuptakeinvitationmethodspatientcharacteristicsandtheimpactofinterventions
AT boglevanessa asystematicreviewoffactorsinfluencingnhshealthcheckuptakeinvitationmethodspatientcharacteristicsandtheimpactofinterventions
AT buntenamanda systematicreviewoffactorsinfluencingnhshealthcheckuptakeinvitationmethodspatientcharacteristicsandtheimpactofinterventions
AT porterlucy systematicreviewoffactorsinfluencingnhshealthcheckuptakeinvitationmethodspatientcharacteristicsandtheimpactofinterventions
AT goldnatalie systematicreviewoffactorsinfluencingnhshealthcheckuptakeinvitationmethodspatientcharacteristicsandtheimpactofinterventions
AT boglevanessa systematicreviewoffactorsinfluencingnhshealthcheckuptakeinvitationmethodspatientcharacteristicsandtheimpactofinterventions